Talisman and Back-line General

Have you ever seen the couples where you think how did he get her or how did she land him? Hugh Jackman's wife or Salma Hayek's husband to name some high profile examples. At a superficial level you might think they're an odd match. But who are we to judge? How do we know what's going on at a deeper level?

A rugby back-line is no different. It's tempting to fill it with dashing players. On a superficial level, an all Fijian back-line is enough to get the pulses racing. But you need a down-to-earth partner who's not afraid to lay the ground work. A player who is content to stay out of the limelight and do what is necessary behind the scenes to make everything runs smoothly.

This happens with the centre pairing, the halves, the wings and it happens on a global level. At some stage, somebody has to lay the groundwork for others to shine. You can't all be trying to grab the limelight at the same time.

When you look at the better back-lines in rugby, you notice that there is a player who keeps everything together on defence. This is largely a thankless task and though these types of players might get noticed when they try to ignite things on attack, generally they don't grab the headlines. I'm talking about a Jean deVilliers type player, a Conrad Smith, an AAC, a D'Arcy. Typically these players are a centre as they tend to be at the heart of things. Australia has a problem at the moment in that they lack a right wing option and AAC is shunted out to the wing because Toomua works well with his Brumbies team mate Kuridrani. However, whilst they might have an understanding at centre, I feel the Wallabies are exposed as a backline with Kuridrani at OC instead of AAC. AAC might have grabbed the headlines for his two tries for the Waratahs but it's his defensive work that doesn't get enough praise.

Being a backline general doesn't mean you can't have your moment in the sun. It's just that you have to have a deeper understanding of what's going on around you. Conrad Smith can score tries for himself but he's also conscious of where Nonu is on defence and where his wingers are on the counter-attack. If Nonu rushes up on attack, Smith can't also be up in the line. If the ball is turned over, straightening up the attack means leaving space on the outside to be exploited. For me, this is the problem with the England midfield. Tuilagi is a talisman player but who is, therefore, the backline general? DeVilliers this year is going to be partnered by his Stormers partner de Allende. That's going to be an intriguing partnership but it's their combination with the rest of the backline that really interests me.

If you have solidity then somebody else can afford to be flamboyant. Often these players in the SH tend to be fullbacks because they have the most opportunities to express themselves. Israel Folau, Israel Dagg, Le Roux all started on the wing but they moved to fullback because they are given license to enter the line and do damage on attack. Of course, behind the scenes, that means somebody has to track behind and do the unseen work of protecting the back. When you contrast a player like Kirchner and Le Roux on attack, it is like comparing Lambrusco and Champagne. The former is effective and gets the job done but there are no thrills. The latter is more refined and is the bigger drawcard simply because it delivers a much more spectacular result.

In the NH, there seems to be a tendency to have your fullback be more a backline general type player. The talisman player tends to be on the wing. Mike Brown and Halfpenny are wonderful players but they are not given nearly as much free license to roam up in the line as the aforementioned SH trio / quartet. The flashy brilliance tends to be expected from the wingers with the centres creating the forward momentum and penetration. Wales tend to be better exponents of this type of game and England seem trapped between this gameplan and a more SANZAR type of game. Ireland with BOD at the top of of his game could be a lot more flexible in their gameplan but now it will be interesting to see whether the Irish wingers are encouraged to be flamboyant or that repsonsibility is handed to the fullback or centres.

The halves pairing dictate how fast the ball comes and where it's directed. Further out, you need players who are aware of when to push forward their team mates to the camera's gaze and when they need to take the spotlight. You also need players who command attention and grab the headlines. Who are those players for your nations?

I agree with this Kia. Combos are critical especially in the backs...and midfield.

We constantly look back to the England WC team. Will Greenwood...who was class, but many forget beside him he had Mike Tindall. Not the most skilled international centre, but a guy who could tackle, carry hard, ruck like a flanker...and just got on with it without a fuss..(Very much like the current Brad Barritt (only a little better i think).
It complimented Greenwood superbly.

We dont have any kind of combo geling in the current regime...but due to injuries and unavailability we have had trouble fielding the prefered lineup consistantly as you would like to get that familiarity.

Interestingly one player in the prem who i really liked was George Lowe at Harlequins. He always seemed able to create space for others around him and seemed to have intelligence. More like a Conrad Smith than a Tuilagi....however due to being injury prone we never had the chance to see if he could have taken that to the next level.

Are you suggesting Salma Hayeks husband at 12 for England?

He's French so I think France have first dibs.

Scotland is also struggling a little to find the right combinations.

Our "star" backs are probably Matt Scott (12), Tim Visser (11) and Stuart Hogg (15). These three are the flash guys who make the breaks and score the tries.

Around these guys we haven't really nailed down combinations. Dunbar has so far worked well at 13 outside Scott. He does the basics well, makes his tackles, carries well and plays a direct style of rugby which opens up space for others. Similarly Maitland who seems to have taken on the "non scoring" winger role, preferring to look for support and ensure continuity. Personally I think he should be more selfish, but he does look to create space for others, and Tim Visser is probably selfish enough for the entire team.

Half backs is also a mess for us. Laidlaw's service is slow and his box kicks are usually counter attacking fodder, but his goal kicking is excellent and he is an important leader within the squad. Personally I prefer Cusiter, he's a greater attacking force, but he doesn't kick goals. Fly half is also interesting. Jackson is the most creative and brings the best out of the backline - his distribution skills are unparalleled within the Scotland set-up. He's also flakey, and his kicking from hand can again be counter attacking fodder. Weir can kick the leather off the ball, but his passing game has regressed and his ability to hoof the ball out on the full has become extremely annoying. Russell looks to have potential but he's a kid. None of the fly half options has proven himself a sufficiently consistent goal kicker for international rugby.

We don't really have a settled combination as of yet. I hope that we'll see Mark Bennett given a shot at 13 in a Scotland jersey this season. He has pace and handling skills that could, in my view, work well with Tim Visser (in the same way that NDL did for Visser in an Edinburgh jersey). 10 is still an issue, but with Scott at 12 I do hope it isn't Weir. Too conservative. I'd rather Russell, Jackson or Heathcote be given a chance.

When Jack Charlton asked Alf Ramsey why he continued to pick him in the 60s (he was first capped aged 30 but became a cornerstone in the English defence) he apparently said "Jack, I don't always pick the best players".
 
What you look for in any team sport is for the whole to be greater than the sum of all parts.
 
See the German football team for instance... any of their Euro/World cup winning sides to be honest.

Deschamps used to do it for France and Dunga for Brazil. Individually not great players but essential to the team. No England manager was interested in Steve Bruce, a rather ungainly centre back with precious little pace, but he marshalled Pallister beautifully in tandem with Irwin and Parker.

Tindall in 2003 is a very good rugby example, as was Pienaar to South Africa in 1995, and for Scotland the best 12 of my supporting lifetime was John Leslie, whose pace and physical attributes were nothing special, but he had that great ability to make those around him, Townsend, Tait and Metcalfe in particular, look special.

To be honest though in Steve Bruce's day there was a host of very talented defenders at England's disposal... although how Barry Venison got a cap I don't know.

"If Lee Dixon plays for England so can I". Great chant.

Borthwick is another example of a great team man whilst not being an outstanding player, Louis Deacon as well and Al Kellock north of the border.

Excellent post Kia, very well reasoned.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:He's French so I think France have first dibs.

Like Steffan   

The beauty of the 'picking the best team, and not best players' is that it is extremely difficult to do, and not many people have the gumption to do so.

Over the course of the last few years I can probably put my hand up and say I have only ever picked the best players, but that has been at lower level clubs, where depth in positions is non existant.

Edited

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:..In the NH, there seems to be a tendency to have your fullback be more a backline general type player. The talisman player tends to be on the wing...

For a long time, England went for a safe pair of hands at full back. Three of our best players in that position were also our main goal kickers: Dusty Hare, Jonathan Webb and Simon Hodgkinson. Having said that, three of the finest natural talents in the North were full backs: JPR Williams, Andy Irvine and Serge Blanco. You could add Phil Bennett, although he's more often known for his play at fly half.

Matt Perry was the first English full back in a while to get a long run in the position because of his ability to counterattack. That paved the way for players like Robinson, Lewsey and Balshaw. Lewsey was more prosaic but Robinson and Balshaw (during his brief purple patch) were talismanic players. Woodward's decision to trust Robinson at full back was a real sea change, since he was the sort of player we would always have kept on the wing before.

When you consider that Martin Johnson preferred attacking players like Ben Foden and Delon Armitage as his fifteens (we'll skip the game where Ugo Monye ended up there), then Mike Brown is a bit of a throwback to Matt Perry rather than the sort of player England has recently fielded.

I've often thought England have missed Delon Armitage more than Steffon Armitage since the last World Cup. He's proved to be less susceptible to injury than Ben Foden or Mat Tait. He's faster than Brown, and links up better with the rest of the back line. He showed last season with Toulon that he can still kick huge penalties. I'm not suggesting that he would be the best option now, but he could have made that position his own if he'd had the discipline.

One of the negative aspects of expecting our wings to create moments of magic is that we heap a lot of pressure on them to do that. Since the Premiership usually has a lot of potential candidates, we found ourselves fielding a whole host of players in the hope one might score a hatful and make his case.

Ashton seemed to be one who would hold down a place with a good try-scoring count but the current England game plan doesn't suit his strengths. When we talk about no-one being on the end of some of our line breaks, that's the kind of thing Ashton excels at, but he doesn't know how to balance tracking the ball carrier with the coaches' demand for him to stay out.

There's a little voice in the back of my head which keeps wondering if Brad Barritt, for all his apparent limitations, isn't actually one of the best partners for Tuilagi. It seems like a retrograde step, given our concerns about the lack of creativity before, but familiarity helps a great deal, and may be Lancaster's fall back position of he can't find a partnership which works consistently well before he has to choose his World Cup squad.

You even had a blend of dependable and excitable in Gavin Hastings. He along with Serge Blanco were my favourite overseas players growing up. I should have said there seems to be a tendency now in the NH to have the house in order at the back and work from that.

Hogg, with that Johnson skidding running style, is more attack minded or at least allowed to play like that but being messed about at flyhalf hasn't helped his cause. We've all seen how Brown, Halfpenny and Kearney can all enter the line or run support and do damage but I don't think the onus is placed on the men at the back to lead the attack or counter-attack. We saw France expose England out wide but I just haven't seen enough of their willingness to attack the better teams with their insistence on conservative play. When I think of French flair in the 80s and 90s, it's sad knowing they still have the players to play that kind of game.

It seems the tactics are caught between two worlds. The 2012 game against NZ is beginning to be a curse rather than a benchmark. If you can consistently play a desired style it becomes engrained in your backline. When you achieve success and then fail to scale those heights again, doubt starts to enter your mind. But you can't hedge your bets and go for a traditional style of going for territory and pressuring the opposition into mistakes or a more mobile, dynamic style where you're looking to get over the gain line and either keeping the ball alive or recycled quickly.

If you cage Ashton in the line then somebody has to be unleashed in his place. If you go for broke then somebody has to be prepared to do the mop up work. Who is SL building his attack on and who in turn is working to get that player into the limelight. It's all a bit hazy at the moment.

I think theres a few people wondering about Mr Barritt.

Combos need time to bed in and become familiar.
I thought Eastmond showed alot of potential in the first NZ test alongside Manu.
But theyve only played one of two games. Need to more to see how they go.

But i thought Burrell had a cracking 6n...and we havent seen him and Manu together enough to judge.

Of course the curve ball would be to drop Manu and try :
12 Eastmond
13 Burrell

Rugby fan interesting you mention Brad Barritt. For me he's a very odd player - for Saracens and England when he's played he has played the role of the defensive lynchpin, the organiser and was a dependable figure in the early days of Lancaster.. Yet he's known as a player not known for his creativity despite having played at fly half in South Africa. He also very rarely kicks yet when I've seen him kick he can - e.g. a deft grubber against Bath last season.

I feel that sometimes teams/clubs in general limits player's creativity - I would say Saracens are far too guilty of that - Farrell and Barritt for example I feel with a bit more coaxing could be more creative - encouraged to be less predictable and this approach would benefit England.

On the other hand I feel some clubs/teams don't give their players enough structure leading to an inconsistent mess of a performance. E.g. something that you could accuse Gloucester of.

It's about finding that balance - that's what rugby is all about.

Not sure that you could call either Tindall or Greenwood generals - they just complimented each other.

Nonu-Smith - is a balanced combo. Care and Farrell seemed to fit well in the 6 nations.

beshocked wrote:Rugby fan interesting you mention Brad Barritt...He also very rarely kicks yet when I've seen him kick he can - e.g. a deft grubber against Bath last season.

It was a grubber kick - perhaps that one - which made me think he had more to offer than I'd previously thought.

Of course, not all solid players can be described as generals and not all talismanic players lack general leadership ability. By all accounts, Olly Barkley became a key backline strategist during the 2007 World Cup - ahead of players like Mike Catt - which was never reflected in his role on the pitch.

One of England's real problems is that we don't have a lot of captaincy material in the back line - I think I asked before about the number of English qualified backs captaining a Premiership side and don't recall too many current prospects in the mix.

Indeed Rugby Fan. You raise an interesting point. The likelihood of being a backline general is likely to see you in the role of a leader. A senior player at the very least. Before DeVilliers as captain, Jacques Fourie was that backline general that held the backline together. Before AAC, Stirling Mortlock was a leader of men as well as the leader of his backline.

Ireland have to find replacements not only for D'Arcy and BOD but they also have to find someone who can organize the defensive line and attack. That comes with experience and that does seem the one thing the English backline is short on at this point in time.